Opinion
1:22-cv-22645-KMM
10-19-2022
MELISSA ROSS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. MICHAEL MOORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant State of Florida's Motion to Tax Costs. (ECF No. 40). The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and/or to issue a Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 41). On September 6, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 43), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED IN PART. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Yet when a party has failed to object to the magistrate judge's findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-CV-21230, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends: (1) Defendant's request for service of subpoena costs in the amount of $180.00 be granted; (2) Defendant's request for $4,195.00 in total costs be reduced by $120.00 because Defendant offers no explanation for the delivery and handling, condensing of the transcript, and “Litigation Technology, Support and Security Management” charges, and the Court has no basis upon which to conclude the charges were reasonably necessary to the litigation; (3) Defendant's request for $4,195.00 in total costs be reduced by $541.62 based on the difference between the invoiced cost of the two depositions and the reduced cost of the depositions, applying a rate of $4.02 per page; and (3) Defendant's request for $366.50 in exemplification costs be granted. This Court agrees.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 64) is ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART and Defendant is awarded $3,3533.38 in taxable costs.
DONE AND ORDERED.